I can certainly see what you mean by taking the conversation off topic. But I feel it was already off topic when some of the first few posts attributed Hyde's article to what they believe is a much larger problem of the race card being pulled too often. So we never started out by talking about Hyde specifically, the general race card conversation was injected into this before I joined in. I wasn't trying to give lessons, I just reacted with one post that got a lot of heated commentary so I took the time to reply thoroughly, I'm not trying to make it seem like I'm preaching to anybody despite how it may look.

It sure sounds as if you are sermonizing here and I think for the most part the comments in this thread about the 'race card' were directed at Hyde's comment, not an overall view of racism topics. Certainly coming into a conversation like that and sermonizing on the dangers of using that term is steering the topic much further off course than it needed to be. As proof, look at where the conversation is now, we are talking about your views on the term 'race card'. I rest my case.

I see what you mean, but if you look at the first two responses to this thread along with some of the posts on the other thread, they became about the underlying issue of the race card and not so much about Hyde. Those two posts made generalizations about the media and our country's use of the race card, so I responded to it. What is taking the conversation off course is that I'm the only one disagreeing with everyone.

It's mostly comments like this that I was responding to (and not to pick on the poster, I know they clarified their comments later on):

Quote:

I agree 100% Rich. It's ridiculous that race can be a cop out for any black man, but it's completely ignored as a white man. If a black kicker/qb coming into the league were asked this question it would make CNN's headlines.

The conversation certainly hasn't been all about Hyde. And If people think that I am sermonizing it's only because comments like this will always inspire a lot of conversation, not because I think I'm smarter than anyone.

Yes but even the example you gave (which was later clarified you say) is about the context of football, and more than likely motivated by the double standard applied to Gerhardt's line of questioning. You came in here bent on telling people they were wrong for using the term 'race card' in society as a whole. If you would have stuck to the context "football", there would have been less heartburn over it. Instead you lashed out over the injustice of using the term 'race card' in society as a whole. The fact remains though, his point was spot on. The race card was used here and there has been a double standard here concerning the NFL. Your taking the context and applying it towards society at large is a sermon that is best left for the political forum. Matter of fact, at this point in time, this whole thread probably belongs in the political forum because of how off track it has gotten.

Please, don't act like your little anecdote about Nazis wasn't an attempt to generalize what I was saying. And it may be the case that we have different experiences with the term, but you certainly are belittling what I'm saying while I am attempting to address everyone's comments.

You say that I'm talking about other issues, but look at the two threads containing this topic carefully. What you'll see is a number of posts that immediately relate Hyde's article to the idea that the 'race card' is over-used as a cop out and that our country is suffering from it. These posters made it about the 'race card' in general and that's why I responded to it the way I did, by stating that the term is inappropriately used as a way to not deal with the challenging issue.

Your way of belittling my comments by associating them with Al Sharpton certainly illustrates how these issues can be quickly trivialized and stereotyped according to certain preconceptions we have about people using the 'race card'. You have a negative bias toward people "pulling the race card" and you associate that with Sharpton, and thus you lump me with that group.

............ Negative bias? Nah, more like ZERO tolerance for posters who can't stick to the topic and fixate on off-tangent comments....... then begin to lecture us on how something like the "race card" is inappropriately used giving us no clear examples of why other than it's a "challenging" issue. The "race card" has most definitely been used appropriately in this thread.

So I must be the first person to take a thread off topic? Not to mention people were already making reference to the underlying issue of race and the race card way before I joined in. Don't act like what bothered you was my going off topic, what you are against is my particular perspective, just own up to that.

I can certainly give you examples of people treating serious issues as trivial using the race card term, but then I ould get accused of "lecturing", and the apparently nonredeemable crime of steering a conversation "off topic".

Quote:

Yes but even the example you gave (which was later clarified you say) is about the context of football, and more than likely motivated by the double standard applied to Gerhardt's line of questioning. You came in here bent on telling people they were wrong for using the term 'race card' in society as a whole. If you would have stuck to the context "football", there would have been less heartburn over it. Instead you lashed out over the injustice of using the term 'race card' in society as a whole. The fact remains though, his point was spot on. The race card was used here and there has been a double standard here concerning the NFL. Your taking the context and applying it towards society at large is a sermon that is best left for the political forum. Matter of fact, at this point in time, this whole thread probably belongs in the political forum because of how off track it has gotten.

Again, I see what you mean and I am not claiming that I stuck on the subject of football. But those comments and others like it, despite being about football, were dripping of political commentary about the issue of the race card in general. Not to mention, the NFL is political just like anything else, and we know all sorts of social issues are involved in something as benign seeming as sports. I didn't bring this conversation about the race card into this...other people posted on it and I replied. I didn't "lash" out at anybody, I was very cautious in explaining I understood why people were upset with Hyde's article. It was you guys who started referring to my posts as a soap box, a sermon/lecture and all of these other personal, off topic things.

So what did you expect with a thread about race and the possibility that players (both black and white) have to deal with issues of race and discrimination in the NFL? Race is an important topic and one that hits close to home for many, so if the conversation didn't stick to just football and if it got a little difficult, it's because these are also serious issues in people's lives. I responded to the thread with honesty but also with consideration to what others have said, I have conceded points when I felt I was wrong..and all you do is come up with your clever little posts that don't resonate at all with me.

I will remember the posts that presented strong points against what I am saying, so certainly not yours.

Bringing up the question of race shouldn't automatically get dismissed with the "race card" label. Race is a serious issue that plays a role in society whether people want to admit it or not, and while I understand that sometimes it isn't backed up well, like in this article, it's still an important issue that shouldn't be reduced to something trivial like "the race card".

The way Hyde wrote it was cheap and obviously for shock value, but that doesn't mean that race doesn't play an issue when it comes to player-personnel relations in the NFL.

Using the term "race card" implies that anyone whp talks about race is trying to hide behind it for personal gain, and while this may be true of some people, it certainly is not true of many people who have tried to bring up race in a serious discussion, yet get accused of pulling the dreaded "race card". Automatically pulling out this "race card" intimidates people from talking about issues that are real.

Not defending Hyde or saying that Ireland was racist. Trust me, I understand that article was arbitrary and written only for reader shock-value, just think it's unhealthy when our gut reaction is to deem everything that deals with race as the "race card".

You may want to save a post like this for a thread in which it actually makes sense to add it instead of wasting our time with a point of view that is not even remotely germane to the discussion.

Number one being the claim that our country is suffering from the race card. That, to me, is a complete exaggeration.

What has cheapened the race debate in this country is those who do pull the race card at every opportunity.

Examples:

If you disagree with Obama and his policies you are racist. You do so because he is black, even if you disagreed with Clinton on the same issues when he was president.If you agree with enforcing illegal immigration laws you are racist.

These are the "clarion calls" being belted out today and cheapening discussions about race.

I will remember the posts that presented strong points against what I am saying, so certainly not yours.

So what are your thoughts on the questions given to Gerhardt in his interview with an 'anonymous' NFL GM?

I'm not one to suggest that discrimination can't go both ways, I never said that despite that being applied to my argument by some of you guys. I know it can go both ways these days, and the media hasn't latched on that story quite as much, I recognize that and I have in previous posts.

Number one being the claim that our country is suffering from the race card. That, to me, is a complete exaggeration.

What has cheapened the race debate in this country is those who do pull the race card at every opportunity.

Examples:

If you disagree with Obama and his policies you are racist. You do so because he is black, even if you disagreed with Clinton on the same issues when he was president.If you agree with enforcing illegal immigration laws you are racist.

These are the "clarion calls" being belted out today and cheapening discussions about race.

Well I can give you just as many examples of times when race should have been adressed (not necessarily with the Obama thing), yet its not talked about with the excuse that someone is just bringing it to the table as a cop out. And I guarantee you many of the examples I could bring up would have far greater consequences than you feeling bad 'cus you can't openly disagree with Obama.

By the way, I like how you generalize your comments. "if you disagree with Obama you ar a racist". According to who? Because I know lots of people from varying races who disagree with Obama on a very mainstream level and are not considered racists. So obviously you must be talking about someone specifically who has made you feel racist for disliking Obama, in that case I agree with you..that is wrong.

But if those are your best examples of how the race card is hurting this country, then you argument doesn't hold much water.

I will remember the posts that presented strong points against what I am saying, so certainly not yours.

So what are your thoughts on the questions given to Gerhardt in his interview with an 'anonymous' NFL GM?

I'm not one to suggest that discrimination can't go both ways, I never said that despite that being applied to my argument by some of you guys. I know it can go both ways these days, and the media hasn't latched on that story quite as much, I recognize that and I have in previous posts.

I don't know that anyone is implying that you think it can't go both ways. I just wanted to hear your thoughts on the subject and try to steer the conversation back towards the NFL.

About as long as it took you to derail this thread with peripheral junk.

Na, it actually took some thought and honesty to type what I did, knowing full well I was going to get blasted. Unlike your cheap comments out of left field.

If you actually took the time to read, you would notice that I am in fact acknowledging the points other people have made when I see fault in my argument. I didn't derail anything, your first reply to this thread was one that claimed the country was going crazy with the race card thing, I think that leaves the door open for my conversation. But of course, since it is in opposition to your great wisdom, it's "peripheral junk". I took the conversation to another place by continuing to talk about my original point rather than Hyde and the article. Beyond that I've done nothing more than talk about the thread based on teh underlying convo about race and the race card that was already happening.

_________________

Last edited by fonzy on Thu Apr 29, 2010 12:04 pm, edited 1 time in total.

I know I am not a mod but before I reply anymore to this topic should it be moved to the political forum? lol Since it is not in the political forum I will try and restrain myself and add this.

Quote:

“I’ve been in that same position and that same seat as a Dez Bryant,” Wiley told ESPN Radio during a Thursday morning appearance. “I can go back to when I was signed as a free agent by the Dallas Cowboys in 2004. Walking into Bill Parcells’ office — this is my, quote unquote, recruiting trip of sorts — I’ve been in the league, this is my seventh or eighth year, Bill Parcells, back turned to me, writing on the chalkboard, doesn’t even turn around to, say, ‘Hello’ or ‘Nice to meet you, Marcellus Wiley,’ just echoes, ‘Do you do drugs?’”

Wiley, who grew up in Compton, Calif., but played his football at Columbia University in the Ivy League, was understandably taken aback. But the fact he wound up signing with the Cowboys should tell you something about the thickness of his skin and maybe even about the jabbing nature of the Parcells Way.

“I took that in jest, ...

The connection of Bill Parcells and Jeff Ireland — you know what? I’m not going to look at this as something that’s going to degrade you. I’m not looking at this question as something that’s going to try and put an indictment on you. I’m simply saying, if you have these issues, and these pressures around you, maybe I should help you ...

And finally, shouldn’t Parcells, rather than letting Ireland twist in the wind, issue a statement of his own taking responsibility for (and maybe ownership of) the Dolphins’ approach in these pre-draft interviews and explaining where Ireland might have been coming from?

I could bring up would have far greater consequences than you feeling bad 'cus you can't openly disagree with Obama.

What greater consequence is there than to squash political dissent?

Quote:

By the way, I like how you generalize your comments. "if you disagree with Obama you ar a racist". According to who?

According to Democrats and liberals. Do you not watch the news?

So ALL Democrats and liberals think you are racist for bashing Obama? What about the MANY Democrats opposed to everything Obama does and the many liberals who think he is a poster boy for change that will never happen? You might want to open your eyes to the vast political dimensions you are talking about with the term "democrats and liberals".

That's not what I said. I said it is Dems and liberals throwing it out there and ONLY Dems and liberals. I didn't say all liberals. There are certainly no Republicans or conservatives saying this.

Quote:

And please, noone is squashing your political voice.

All I can say is you're living in a fantasy world if you do not see the attempt being made by the leftist political class to squash dissent by labeling the dissenters as racist.

Bill Clinton comparing the Tea Party to Timothy McVeigh. Dem pols comparing the Arizona immigration law to Nazism. All the leftist blogs and even some in the media hinting at racism everytime someone disagree's with Obama's policies. Example, Newt Gingrich says Obama is always coming out in interviews shooting a basketball and then says "we don't need an athlete in the White House, we need a leader".

Pundits on MSNBC decide to have a discussion the next day about how the comment was racist. The sad thing is, one of the pundits says it was clearly racist because "all blacks are good athletes".